Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it....

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

There's at least a core of common ground between the TP and OWS, revolving around Wall Street and D.C. behavior that strikes many people as unethical and/or immoral, if not strictly illegal. Ultimately, it's outrage over the realization that people who were thought to have a fiduciary interest in the common good were actually more like three-card monte dealers. But hey, nothing illegal happened!

But given the intense loathing of the American left and right for one another, it will be pretty surprising if any sort of common movement emerges.

As always, this attacks the problem from the wrong end. As long as gov't has the power to take from some and give to others, to favor some and disfavor others, to take A's money and give it to B, etc., it doesn't matter what "safeguards" are put in place.

That power will be accessed, and used. Always. The change has to be way more fundamental.

I think the best you could hope for along those lines is a candidate or candidates that appeal enough to both sides for each to quietly pull the lever for them within the privacy of the voting booth. AFTER that happened in sufficient numbers to get someone like that elected to high office, you might see the makings of a moderate movement coalesce around him or her.

Other than that, I just can't stand the other side enough to (insert over the top comment here) with them.

I am not the biggest fan of Palin, but she does nail it here. However, it's unpossible (yes, that's a Homerism), at least with the current constitution of Congress. Charlie Rangel is still serving, there's no way the Congress that let him stay on could ever garner enough votes to create a less corrupt atmosphere.

It is hilarious in a sick way to realize that while democrats have done a good job in general whipping these OWS creatures into a hate-filled frenzy against this mysterious force they believe to be 'Wall Street', DC politicians escape the reality that they impose upon the rest of us with their influence-peddling, supplemental compensation, premium health plans, and gold-plated retirement schemes.

The joke unfortunately is on us. The outrage these OWS types demonstrate is sadly misdirected. The pols have turned citizen vs. citizen in an epic shell game utilizing the country's future.

These OWS people and all citizens need a group bitchslap in order to wake up to the reality that is the absolute fleecing of the American people on the altar of party politics.

The occupy collective want the tax payer to pay for their sociology degree in Marxism, then they want a secure cushy government job (also funded by tax payers) with a lavish pension and an early retirement (tax payer funded). They want a government backed housing loan that will be forgiven even if they can't pay it back. They want to get paid to do very little, with union work rules and a break every 15 minutes. They want free health care (also tax payer funded). They are whining like children because they want the tax payer to baby them, cradle to grave. It's only fair and the democrat party agrees.They want a piece of the pie, but their idea of sweet pie is to burn down the bakery.

Go watch the Daily Show walk-through of Zucatti Park showing the real divide within the OWS ranks, the fact that they're using Deutsche Bank's atrium for their leadership meetings (because it's nice and quiet), the apparent difference between private and personal property...a stunning example of just how much shit these idiots are full of.

The OWS crowd are anti-wealth and anti-capitalism. They're also unproductive morons.

They also, despite this alleged outrage at "Wall street" will vote (to the extent the vote) in the 90+% range for the Presidential candiate whom has received more Wall Street campaign contributions than any other candidate in the history of America.

It wasn't just that Palin was unpolished, she wasn't ready for the national spotlight. Neither is Cain. The regular media will hound a Republican with power in a way that they won't to most Dems. See the way Clinton was treated vs. Cain. There, the establishment bent over backwards to say the accusers were no good money grubbers with Cain anonymous sources were quoted and immediately beyond reproach, there was no second guessing of Politico's report.This is not to say either was innocent or guilty, just that with a similar set of facts two different approaches were taken, most likely to do with politics. Now, because of that, because of the way a Repub will be attacked, you need to be completely competent on all major issues before entering a national stage. It's why Palin failed, it's why Cain is failing, it's why Perry is failing. They were all good at a few things, speaking a few soundbites, but they weren't ready for questioning that came from every angle because the media wants to really vet them. Palin may be ready now in that regard, but she has turned off a lot of people. Her folksy manner is less important than not being caught off guard.

Hell, Reagan was pretty damn folksy, but he was a charmer and he knew pretty everything about his platform, had a great ability to pull a soundbite from mid-air and wasn't able to be trapped by a surprise question.

Yes John the classic liberal is libertarian. However I do not self-identify as liberal because the term obviously means something different these days.

I prefer to refer to 'them' as 'progressives' in general.

As for your take on Ron Paul I only nitpick his apparent isolationist foreign policy views. Not a show-stopper but something he needs to address/elaborate on if he wants to be considered as a serious candidate. But your larger point is not lost in terms of the rest of them being a 'non-choice' in terms of the modern party construct.

That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

It was only yesterday I read a leftie comment over at Hot Air (I think) raving that Sarah Palin entered local/state office with modest means, and left near-bankrupt -- as if this was proof of her incompetence or something. (Of course, she would have left with modest means had lefties not showered her with frivolous lawsuits knowing Alaska law makes lawmakers pay out of pocket for their own legal defense, even where they are being sued for official acts.) What's interesting is that he failed to make the obvious inference that no dishonest politician would ever leave office with less than he enters with, only an honest one would. In the eyes of the left, government officials are expected to enrich themselves in office; it's an intrinsic perk of being among the nomenklatura.

Paco Wové said...There's at least a core of common ground between the TP and OWS.... But given the intense loathing of the American left and right for one another, it will be pretty surprising if any sort of common movement emerges.

The difference lies in the TP and OWS's different ideas for solutions, how to achieve the solutions structurally within the govt by elected leaders, how to get to the point that leaders are in office who can and will affect change, codes of conduct for expressing frustration and outrage, etc.

Judge them by the fruits of their labor.

A married couple both believe the marriage is crumbling. They have cheated and lied, and trust is lost. One wants to try to restore the marriage (counseling, etc). The other wants a divorce. Can ya really say that this couple haws a core common ground?

"My spidey sense says she just approves the best articles and signs them."

This is likely true, but not diminishing of her. Because what a politician categorizes as the 'best' is itself a huge indicator of their thinking.

Why is Palin promoting these ideas and not some supposedly more powerful figure who could afford in money and status to hire the best writers? Because Palin is pushing for ideas and then, most likely, finding someone who puts those ideas into highly polished language. It's a speechwriter, but very much reflective of Palin's mind and goals.

Correct, but Bill was right. She needs to have enough command of the issues she's publishing about under her name to have extended debates on the topics. Anything less just holds her up as a figurehead.

Karma is a bitch. The narcissistic Bankers, who Unconstitutionally create money from dent, and charge We the People interest for using our own currency, will either be going to prison or will hang from lamposts. It's coming.The criminal and treasonous governments around the world, who are controlled by the producers of debt that enslave the planet, will experience the same Karmic destiny.No one voted for the criminal IMF, or the Fed-- they are Usurping the rule of the planet. All governments and Bankers better think long and hard about which side they are on. Word.

"because of the way a Repub will be attacked, you need to be completely competent on all major issues before entering a national stage"

That is looking for a standard of perfection that is not attainable. They do need to be mostly competent on all major issues, but the occasional slipup is going to happen. The essential distinction is that slipups need to be excused when they're about factual nits, and condemned when they betray bad judgment or indifference to essentials.

Ignorance of Cuba politics slang ("wet foot" and "dry foot") or beltway policy wonk shorthand ("Bush doctrine") is excusable, if one displays a command of the issue underneath.

What is inexcusable is lacking an unprompted overview of what principles and American interests are involved regarding a multi-billion-dollar deployment of American forces in a shooting war, as in Cain's stumble over Libya.

"Palin may be ready now in that regard, but she has turned off a lot of people"

Much of the Palin hate is simple snobbery against her middle-class diction. The same words spoken in an NPR accent would be taken as thoughtful. It's true that Palin was not as well prepared in 2008 as she needed to be for the top spot, although for the VP spot her knowledge was sufficient at the time. In 2011, Palin has demonstrated knowledge of the issues superior to all GOP candidates except possibly Romney and Gingrich, and more principled reasoning than either of those.

Reagan was well prepared because he had been a presidential candidate in 1976, and had in fact been aiming toward national office pretty much from the time he left Sacramento. Still, the left always called Reagan a dunce whether he was speaking from concrete knowledge or off the cuff.

It's not an impossible standard by any means. The points you (craig) bring up are ancillary ones. But before entering the national scene a Republican needs to have a competent basis on his or her beliefs as they relate to the major issues of the day. Right now that would be foreign policy with emphasis on the EU debt, China's role in the world, the Middle East uprisings and what to do with Iran. Also, the U.S. debt and spending and how you curb them. Then, energy production/climate change. Why is domestic energy production important? Jobs, and how fewer regulations and lower taxes lead to them. etc. It's a lot to know, but you better know it because it's what you'll deal with every day as president...and as we've seen, someone who's unprepared can screw up a lot (Goodbye Green Revolution, Hello Nuclear Iran!)

I liked Palin when she first came out, she was a breath of fresh air, but she certainly wasn't ready. Over the last four years she has remained in the public eye while she develops her platform...that's what has turned a lot of people, like me, off. She struggled to find her footing but was getting a huge arena to present it and often came off as foolish or just populist. Now she seems to be getting back on target, but it may be too late.

"In 2011, Palin has demonstrated knowledge of the issues superior to all GOP candidates except possibly Romney and Gingrich, and more principled reasoning than either of those."

Exactly right.

I disagree with those who think she is unable to write her own articles. Extemporaneous speaking and writing are two separate skill sets. Most of us know people who write well but are not as adept at finding the best words in real time conversation. Conversely we all know glib people without an original thought in their heads.

"The narcissistic Bankers, who Unconstitutionally create money from dent,"

I assume you mean debt, there.

Creating money from debt is not unconstitutional. It may or may not be moral but it is not unconstituional.

Bankers have been creating money from debt since the 1300 when the Italian goldsmiths figured out fractional reserve banking.

They also caused one of the 4 great inflations of the the period 1200-2000. We are still in the 4th one.

Perhaps you have in mind the Federal Reserve Banks? They pretty much industrialized money creation via fractional reserve banking.

Are the Federal Reserve Banks unconstitutional? In spirit certainly. Technically? Probably not. They are privately owned. If the govt owned them, they would be unconstituional.

Is the Federal Reserve Board, which regulates the Federal Reserve Banks unconstitutional? No more so than any other regulatory agency.

I take your point about the Fed and even agree with you. But technically you are wrong on their constitutionality.

John Henry"

The Federal Reserve creates money from DEBT (why do you think they are called Federal Reserve NOTES), i.e Treasury Bills. Banks create money by fractional reserve, and loans-- creating money out of thin air from DEBT. Money is also created by Margin, and by Credit default swaps. There is currently WAY more debt in the world than can possibly be supported by income--- Debt Saturation-- the end game.

The Fed is certainly Unconstitutional, precisely because it is Private. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create coin, and regulate the value thereof. It doesn't give them the power to cede that authority to a private entity.The Interest on the money that is created creates a ponzi scheme, since the amount of money in circulation cannot ever pay the interest, so more money (debt) must be created, and the cycle continues.The money creation power of the Central Banks gives them the power to control the government, and those closest to the money creation power profit the most.The problem is that all ponzis collapse, and that ponzi is in the process of collapse, since incomes can no longer service the debt.

"Right now [the major issues] would be foreign policy with emphasis on the EU debt, China's role in the world, the Middle East uprisings and what to do with Iran. Also, the U.S. debt and spending and how you curb them. Then, energy production/climate change. Why is domestic energy production important? Jobs, and how fewer regulations and lower taxes lead to them. etc."

I wholeheartedly agree with your list. The problem is that every candidate can be tripped up by something not on that list -- e.g., South Florida politics aside, Cuba is not a major issue. Every region has issues of local importance that can be spun as "major" by the MSM when convenient.

"How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'?"

She should already have the answers to these questions. She's worth what now, $12 million or so?

For those who do not know the difference, a good analogy I learned back in school is the NY Stock Exchange.

The NYSE is a privately owned organization with no govt ownership at all. Like the FR Banks.

It is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. A govt regulatory agency. Like the FR Board.

John Henry"

Both the SEC and the FRB are captured entities of the Private central bankers of the Federal Reserve. Why do you think that no Bankers went to jail after the 2008 collapse? Why do you think that Mark to Market accounting was suspended? Why do you think that Banks don't have to show their shadow inventory of non performing mortgages on their books? Why do you think that Banks are allowed to shuttle bad assets off to shell companies, so that private losses will become private liabilities?

The illegal money creation power of the Fed has poisoned and corrupted the political system. If you don't understand that money IS DEBT then you don't understand anything. Producing money from debt enriches private individuals and hurts We the people. The OWS protesters have encountered the effects of debt money, and while they may not understand it completely, they know something is wrong (not that I agree w/ their solutions).

The Fed has said that "Oversight" hurts their ability to maintain their "mandate" (stable prices and full employment), and the Congress just lets them get away w/ it-- because they are captured by those with the money creation power--- there is no oversight by we the people. They have massively FAILED their mandate, as 15% of America is on foodstamps, Real unemployment is near 20%, and oil and food prices have skyrocketed-- yet they receive no "oversight".

A "NOTE" is a DEBT. By that simple realization you are just plain wrong. Money does not have to be created by debt, it can simply be issued by the government-- sovereign money.

Bankers and Technocrats are power hungry narcissists. The rebellion has begun, and I would think that some will hang from lamposts. They have stolen the wealth of the world, and their just deserts will be arriving sooner rather than later.

I know several people who are orally inarticulate yet are sages at the written word.

I would be willing to accept that. Does she have a trail of policy papers from before she was tagged as the VP nominee? That would bolster such a characteristic. Good writers only become good by writing...a lot.

@36: I didn't think your previous comment could be topped in terms of stupidity.

I was wrong.

You don't even understand the stuff you type, so I'll try to explain it to you: If you repeat the observation that you appear to have overdosed on stupid pills and then proudly announce that you're not a Palin follower, you're providing evidence that being stupid makes someone less likely to support Palin. Don't bother typing back that it's not what you meant, b/c we all know that.

Or, when you typed "I'm not a follower of Palin partner," did you mean that you don't follow Todd Palin on twitter?

It's hard to decode the output of a fool.

Enough. I don't want to do an ongoing Seven Machos impersonation so early in the day.

36fsfiend: I think you misunderstand the argument. The concept is that people in elected office are using their knowledge of government's regulations concerning various industries to profit from that knowledge. It is not about a politician making money from selling books and giving speeches. There is a big difference between these two things, you see, and the former is unethical and should be criminal and the latter is entrepreneurial.

This is the only candidate that understands what it will take to get out of the Banker Box of Debt based money. The only solutions in that box is Austerity or higher taxes. Neither is a solution, and only make the problem worse.Sovereign money introduced by Congress can end the Ponzi of debt based currency controlled by a private entity. Debt money is the cause of the debt crisis, as it requires the issuance of more debt to solve a debt problem--- is there any sanity in that?

“ 36fsfiend: I think you misunderstand the argument. The concept is that people in elected office are using their knowledge of government's regulations concerning various industries to profit from that knowledge. It is not about a politician making money from selling books and giving speeches. There is a big difference between these two things, you see, and the former is unethical and should be criminal and the latter is entrepreneurial.”

I disagree. You don’t actually believe that Palin wouldn’t take advantage of the system if she made it to DC?

She had no problem taking thousands of dollars while campaigning with McCain.

And as I posted up tread, members of the Tea Party in congress, a group Palin supports, are doing the same thing.

If you know what people are going to do in advance of their doing it you should employ that skill in the making of a fortune for yourself.

Whether it is Democrats or Teaparty people profiting from inside information they should be sent to jail just like anyone else. There are rules which prevent journalists who cover financial matters from trading on the companies they write about. Why would Congress be exempt?

36fsfiend: I still think you are missing the point. Bill Clinton made a fortune after he left office. He did nothing illegal. He sold books, he joined boards and he gave speeches for money. He did not profit from inside information while he was president, he did not trade stocks wrongfully using information he gained in office.

Are you suggesting that one should not profit from their experiences? That the relationships you make cannot result in opportunities?

I see that you are cynical but you seem to have a blind spot about what the topic is.

“36fsfiend: I still think you are missing the point. Bill Clinton made a fortune after he left office. He did nothing illegal. He sold books, he joined boards and he gave speeches for money. He did not profit from inside information while he was president, he did not trade stocks wrongfully using information he gained in office.

Are you suggesting that one should not profit from their experiences?”

No.

“I see that you are cynical but you seem to have a blind spot about what the topic is.”

Yes, I’m cynical of a politician who used her fame as a politician to make her millions lecturing about what’s wrong with DC.

36--interesting to me is that some people on both sides of the political spectrum can acknowldge the system is corrupt. When the political divide can be addressed by both sides, reespective out outcomes, that may be the first step--if both sides can agree the system is corrupt, perhaps reasonable people on both sides can put aside their policy differences and focus on the evil, then perhaps there can be some meaningful prescriptions.

My brother was a cav scout out of Ft Hood before he went spec ops. At the time, I was stationed at Eglin AFB in Florida. He and and some of his friends came over to my place in the enlisted barracks as neither of us could make it home for Thanksgiving.

They were NOT pleased by what they say when I showed them our facilities and award-winning chow lines...complete with salad and sundae bar.

Good man, 36--ALOs pulled my ass out of many a scrape in the hostilties of Viet Nam--the thing about serving is that you trust the guys that support you--you trust them to drop ordnance even when you say danger close--and they always did--I learned to respect my supporting fire and was never disappointed.

As to chow? the army I was in ate C rations of other delicacies unlike the current army that is provisioned by contractors--but now I am lapsing into colonel blimp territory. Most of what we got was canned rations heated in immersion heaters.

"Good man, 36--ALOs pulled my ass out of many a scrape in the hostilties of Viet Nam--the thing about serving is that you trust the guys that support you--you trust them to drop ordnance even when you say danger close--and they always did--I learned to respect my supporting fire and was never disappointed."

Great story. Glad to hear the AF guys served you well.

My stint was with them during Desert Shield/Storm. Participated in the air asault up to the Euphrates as part of the left hook with the French 6th and U.S. 24th mech.

36--I had since retired, but one of my old cavalry comrades, Col Don Holder, commanded the 2d Armored cavalry--Not that I enjoyed combat all that much, but as Winston Churchill said, I believe, that nothing is more exhilarating to be shot and and missed.

Whilst in viet nam I also had the battleship New Jersey fire in support of me--nothing like the sound of 16 inch round coming in to fill you with awe.

we had mostly F4s (one of the great combat air planes) dropping ordnance--probably the exhaust fumes killed as many bad guys as did the the snake and nape.

Paco Wove said:But given the intense loathing of the American left and right for one another, it will be pretty surprising if any sort of common movement emerges.

Well, while both the TEA Party and the OWs crowd are appalled at the US elite's 'one law for me and another for thee' treatment of their supposed constituents, their underlying ethos is dramatically different. The TEA Partiers have a single issue - fiscal responsibility and are in accordance with both tradition and law. They are law-abiding citizens.

The OWS crowd are not law-abiding in any sense of the word and seemingly simply wants 'stuff that we don't have to pay for'. This is diametrically opposed to the TEA Party's goals. Aside from 'give us free stuff' and 'down with capitalism', (another goal that conflicts mightily with the TEA Party) the OWS seemingly have no real purpose or list of objectives. And they have showed an appalling lack of regard for their fellow citizens (who have to live in the places they've defiled after the Occupiers are gone). So even if the two groups share a small something in common, I think these differences would prevent them from working together except in a very broad sense.

As for Governor Palin, as usual she makes sense. As a Californian, I know that term limits are ineffective. We need to limit our representatives' ability to game the system as the infamous Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and so many others have done so successfully. And that includes bureaucrats.

I'd also forbid lawyers from serving in Legislatures. Lawyers bear much of the blame for our ridiculously arcane laws and of course, they benefit by making it difficult for the average man to understand. And after all, they are part of the Judicial branch, not the Legislative anyway.

any people are better at expressing their thoughts in writing than in speech and I suspect that is the case with Palin.

As I said to a similar response upthread, I would like to see her policy writings dated from before her being tagged as McCain's VP. If her works proved as well-focused and well-written then, I would have little trouble accepting that she's primarily responsible for the content of her recent work.

Failing that, I'm betting she's working with a few people, putting the ideas together, group-writing, editing, and workshopping this material, then releasing it under her name.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing and not even necessarily disingenuous, but it would put her at a severe handicap in a debate or interview situation.

"As I said to a similar response upthread, I would like to see her policy writings dated from before her being tagged as McCain's VP. If her works proved as well-focused and well-written then, I would have little trouble accepting that she's primarily responsible for the content of her recent work."

Her emails are available from that time. That her stupid twists of phrase didn't get to be a runny gag, I'm assuming is a good reason to think that she expresses herself clearly about policy and work.

Also, a comparison between what she writes now and what she wrote casually then would be a very good indication if she has more than a copy-edit and review for this new stuff.

“It certainly doesn't speak to policy but I believe that it adequately refutes 36's cynicism about her character.”

Roy,

In the next to the last paragraph of her WSJ article, Palin talks about earmarks and lobbyists.

The Mother Jones article at the link below, discusses how Palin claimed during the 2008 campaign that she would lead a charge in Washington against earmarks and yet her state received more money, per capita, in earmarks in 2009:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/sarah-palin-earmark-hypocrisy

In the Time Magazine article at the link below which is about the TransCanada pipeline Palin pushed for while running for governor, she appointed Marty Rutherford, who had previously been a lobbyist for TransCanada, as the Natural Resources Commissioner responsible for overseeing the pipeline project:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1846731-2,00.html

In the last paragraph of her WSJ article, Palin talks about the Tea Party's mission in opposing waste and crony capitalism. Yet, the article at the link below, discusses how Tea Party members in Congress are raking in cash from special interest groups:

In 2008, she campaigned against earmarks, but in 2009 she had no problem accepting earmarks for her state and yet in her WSJ article she once again talks about eliminating earmarks. Don’t you think that seems hypocritical?

As far as the Tea Party, she is a big supporter and is considered a leader in the movement. She claims they are against cronyism yet there are members in Congress pulling in the big bucks from special interest groups. She would have more credibility, in my opinion, if she called those members of Congress out.

I don’t consider stating facts as slander. As far as living a life of rectitude, when she made the accusation that the new health care law would institute “death panels” that would potentially kill her disabled child that was a blatant lie. That is not morally correct behavior or thinking. If she was against the health care law, then she should argue against it based on facts, not lies.

I’ve always believe the Republican Party was the party of personal responsibility, which to me, also includes integrity and accountability.

The fact that she didn't explicitly condemn a particular act of Alaskan Congressmen does not, NOT, constitute approval of such behavior nor is it hypocrisy. Such people that perpetually condemn the conduct of other are called scolds and are rightly scorned.

As to "Death Panels" - the "Stimulus Bill" established a panel to determine the effectiveness of medical procedures. The "Obamacare Law" funded that panel and provided that its annual determinations were to become law unless both Houses of Congress voted against them within 30 days.

At that time Dr. Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, was the senior health adviser to Obama. ZE had written extensively in major journals advocating the adoption of the British system of "Quality Adjusted Life Years" (QALY). Thus, in determining whether her son Trig would qualify for health care, he would be granted a lower "score" because he was of lesser value to society.

Mike, these people are eugenecists. They care nothing for you and me. Der Volk! Solidarity! Evil!

I sense that you have a somewhat different view of humanity than I. Guess we'll just have to disagree.

Regarding the earmarks, several of them were specifically requested by her. They were not entirely just the doings of the congressional representatives from Alaska. Her message would resonate more with me if she voiced her disapproval of her state reps in Congress seeking those earmarks.

As I understand it, the "Death Panels" comment was concerning a provision in the new law promoted by Rep. Earl Blumenauer that would allowed Medicare to pay for doctor appointments to allow people to discuss end-of-life issues such as hospice care, living wills, advance directives and such. There was no threat to Palin’s disabled child as she claimed.

In actuality, I would say the system in which insurance companies can deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions or annual caps is closer to an actual death panel.

I really don’t believe they are eugenicists. I think they believe all should have access to heath care. I don’t necessarily disagree with that position. I do believe the heath insurance industry is a monopoly. If we all really had a choice about getting sick or injured, with very few exceptions, none of us would choose that and there would be no demand for a heath insurance industry. Unfortunately, the heath care industry, like national defense, is necessary.